Pope Benedict, the Pope of Christian Unity, has put in place provisions to receive into unity with Rome traditionally-minded Anglicans who desire to remain Christian. Anglicanorum coetibus was the Holy Father’s response to their request.
Meanwhile, we are watching the Anglican Church of England degenerate from what Card. Dias told them at their Lambeth meeting, their "spiritual Alzheimer’s" and "ecclesial Parkinson’s".
Now I read this on CNA and add my E & C:
Church of England moves towards ordaining women
London, England, May 11, 2010 / 03:08 am (CNA).- Over the weekend, the Church of England introduced draft legislation putting the country’s Anglican communion on the fast track to allowing women’s ordination. [Anglicans! Come in! The Tiber isn’t that wide!]
On Saturday, May 8, the Church of England’s revision committee published a 142-page review in favor of draft proposals that support women being consecrated as bishops and priests.
According to Reuters, the church’s revision committee also proposed safeguards for more traditional parishes who have expressed opposition to ordaining women, including the right to request that a male bishop perform blessings and ordinations. However, the committee proposals did not meet the requests by these parishes for new dioceses or a special class of bishops. [Aren’t there C of E churches where you can have the option of two different eucharists? One "consecrated" by a man and another by a women?]
“After much discussion the Committee rejected proposals aimed at fundamentally changing the approach of the legislation for those unable to receive the ministry of female bishops,” wrote Church of England officials in a statement Monday.
The draft proposals will now go forward for debate at the Church’s General Synod, in July in York, Northern England. If passed, the Church of England will hold the same position on female ordination as the Anglican Communion in the United States and New Zealand. [Which has really helped those communities!]
Monday’s statement also clarified that the “earliest that the legislation could achieve final approval in Synod (when two-thirds majorities in each of the Houses of Bishops, Clergy and Laity will be required) is 2012, following which parliamentary approval and the Royal Assent would be needed.” [I feel sorry for poor Queen Elizabeth.]
The statement added that “2014 remains the earliest realistic date when the first women might be consecrated as bishops.”
This move is likely to increase interest among traditionalist Anglicans in the Pope’s recent invitation for Church of England members to become Catholic. [D’ya think?!?] Last November, the Holy Father released “Anglicanorum coetibus,” a motu propio which offered Vatican guidelines for Anglican groups to enter into communion with the Catholic Church.
The Sunday Telegraph in Britain reported on May 2 that several Anglican bishops recently met with Vatican officials to discuss the process of converting to Catholicism.
Despite the Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams reportedly urging them not to leave the Church of England, several bishops are looking to break from the Anglican Communion over their opposition to the introduction of women bishops and priests.
According to the British paper, Bishops John Broadhurst, Keith Newton and Andrew Burnham, from the Dioceses of Fulham, Richborough and Ebbsfleet respectively, all met with senior Vatican officials last week.
Slouching along toward total irrelevance.
I invite all the women religious out there who are in favor of the "ordination" of women (not to mention pro-abortion health care legislation) to seek a safe haven in the Church of England. Hopefully soon the Anglicans could put together Romanorum romanarumque coetibus. Soon the C of E could welcome them – along with other-gendered sympathizers – into that inclusive embrace. There they will all be free from Roman oppression and patriarchy, free to keep their cherished traditions such as the lame-duck ICEL translation, pottery cups, big puppets…. What’s wrong with that? What’s not to like?
Loading ...
The C of E is terminal. That’s what happens when you become a social welfare organization rather than a church. I hope our liberal brethren within the Catholic Church are listening.
I was fascinated to learn that a priest friend of mine who teaches in Rome and works in the Vatican and is English fears that those who wish to “swim the Tiber” may not be the most stable chaps. I’m told that’s a great fear…no reason to reject them of course, but I think Rome wants to be sure of what they’re getting and not just generally angry people.
I agree, though Father, let’s have an even trade give the CofE all the crazy nuns and we’ll take the traddies! Great trade! They can take all of them. It’s sad that all the land and resources these nuns amassed were due to the generous donations of pious and often poorer Catholics!
This is also the fruit of decades of misguided ecumenism. The Catholic Church and the CofE are now further apart than ever, while the Catholic Church mutilated her liturgy and lost countless souls in a misguided attempt to reconcile lost protestants. Thankfully, Catholics are experiencing a correction and are able to offer a haven to the abused members of the Anglican Church. However, we have miles yet to go.
No, no, no, TJerome!
The C of E is in trouble because mossback conservatives stand in the way of progress and bring about division.
It is this divisiveness that has caused the loss of members — just like it has for the Catholic Church.
/snark
This article is odd in that it (apparently?) confuses ordination and episcopal consecration. Some Church-of-England priests have been women since oh 1994. The present dispute is about Church-of-England bishops.
It might be “sexist” (whatever that is) to ordain only men… but it is more sexist, and incoherently so, to ordain women but to consecrate only ordained men. Could the journalist have failed to distinguish ordination and consecration because it make so little sense to do so?
For some excellent historical perspective, check out the Thames Valley Papists website. It recounts the tragic journey of the English recusants who preserved the Faith over five hundred years, despite terrible persecutions. May those saints and martyrs continue to intercede for their beloved country.
‘..pottery cups, big puppets’ and fab-uolous rainbow chasubles.
Still laughing about the puppets and pottery. Also: it always looks like those women are playing dress-up. I don’t know how anyone takes them seriously.
Thus passeth any claim to Apostolic Succession that the Anglican Church may have had…to be sure, a parish or diocese may have a male bishop, but what about his pedigree? Will the Anglican Church maintain two seperate lines of succession, one with a properly all male history and one without? And if you have two lines of succession, what does that do to internal, let alone ecumenical, unity?
As much as I am frustrated by pottery, puppets, liturgical dance and the like, I’m not sure I could ever wish that anyone leave the embrace of Holy Mother Church and Her sacraments.
Basilorat,
this Englishman can assure you that we have just as many “unstable” clergy on this side of the Tiber as the Anglicans have on theirs. A handful more will hardly make much difference either way. Let’s give these people a warm welcome!
If the C of E has no womympriests or byshops now, then what, pray tell, are those womyn in the photograph?
I’m not sure how many C of E clergymen will actually gird up their loins and swim the Tiber. Many of these are married men with families. The Ordinariate isn’t up and running yet, and even if it were, they would take a substantial paycut and lose their pensions.
Yet another argument in favor of clerical celibacy.
I thought they (C of E, Episcopalian) were already ordaining women?
‘I feel sorry for poor Queen Elizabeth’-so do I, Father Z!
The Church of England is absolutely clueless! I hope the three Anglican bishops who want to cross the Tiber will be coming soon!
I wonder, with the Holy Father’s upcoming trip to the UK, will he be visiting any Anglican cathedrals? If he is, it would look rather weird if a ‘priestess’ greets him at the door! [for the ‘priestess’, not the Holy Father, of course!]
Medievalist,
Trust me, many Anglicans, especially of the conservative variety, have researched their various lines of Apostolic Succession exhaustively. The Church of England, obviously, reacted vocally in opposition to Apostolicae Curae, but then, quietly, started including Old Catholic (Utrecht) bishops in their consecrations. (The so-called “Dutch Touch”!) This happened enough so that when the former Anglican bishop of London, the late Graham Leonard swam the Tiber, he was ordained by Rome conditionally, not absolutely.
In the United States, the Polish National Catholic church was involved in numerous Episcopal consecrations until the mid 1970’s, when the Episcopal church started ordaining women.
Believe me, it is an elaborate process! When an Anglican clergyman swims the Tiber and wishes to be considered for ordination by Rome, he has to provide a detailed list of his claimed Apostolic Succession for review.
My dearest friends and I have been out of the Episcopal Church for 33 years now; We simply went, without bitterness but also without shame–for none of this had quite taken root just yet–we’d only seen the handwriting on the wall. We went searching for our Unchanging God and His Unchanging Truth, and found precisely what we needed. One must leave it =all=, carrying nothing in one’s hands. God gave us back our Faith, stable, clean and shining with His light.
Every day, prayers go up for anyone who is just now seeing that they are in a place where that Unchanging Truth no longer is.
One of my “pomes” to encourage everyone:
“When”
When one must keep God’s Truth while all about him
Are changing that and offering theirs instead;
When one must trust the Lord when all men doubt Him
And not succumb to doubt or lose one’s head;
When one must hope and not be disappointed,
When lies abound and one gets naught but fudge,
When God’s own Truth has been denied, disjointed,
And one still holds that Truth, and cannot budge,
When we believe in Truth, Truth is our Master.
When we think rightly, Right must be our aim.
When we walk through defeat, and then disaster,
And still keep walking through them, without shame;
When we must bear to see the Truth we’ve spoken
Twisted by some, to catch us in their net,
We cannot send our Saviour to be broken
And crucified again, while some forget
That Jesus is the Way to man’s salvation,
The Truth to guide man to His home above,
No one can find His Truth in innovation,
Nor see Truth compromised, and call that love,
No one can quench the Light and choose the shadow.
No one can hide the Truth or bar the Way.
No one can sit and watch such sheer bravado
Lead weary, wandering pilgrims far astray.
When we have come to see there’s no more winning
A battle that was joined decades ago,
When we have wept to learn how what was sinning
Is now praiseworthy, to be put on show
For all the world to laud, and then to follow
Where’er it may be leading, what to do?
When one finds out how many boasts are hollow:
There’s but the Cross of Christ, for me, for you.
“Mashenka”
19 Nov. 2009
With apologies to Rudyard Kipling
“‘..pottery cups, big puppets’ and fab-uolous rainbow chasubles.”
Most progressives don’t wear chasubles at all. Rainbow stoles are what they enjoy.
Trust me, many Anglicans, especially of the conservative variety, have researched their various lines of Apostolic Succession exhaustively. The Church of England, obviously, reacted vocally in opposition to Apostolicae Curae, but then, quietly, started including Old Catholic (Utrecht) bishops in their consecrations.
Rome only recognizes Orders when the principal celebrant is considered to have valid Episcopal Orders.
The fact that an Old Catholic bishop had participated is not considered proof that a priest’s Orders are valid.
(The so-called “Dutch Touch”!) This happened enough so that when the former Anglican bishop of London, the late Graham Leonard swam the Tiber, he was ordained by Rome conditionally, not absolutely.
Before Graham Leonard converted, he insisted that Rome recognize his Orders–thus no ordination, conditional or otherwise. And he would be a Catholic bishop. Rome said no on both points. He is the only swimmer to have been conditionally ordained.
In the United States, the Polish National Catholic church was involved in numerous Episcopal consecrations until the mid 1970’s, when the Episcopal church started ordaining women.
See above.
Believe me, it is an elaborate process! When an Anglican clergyman swims the Tiber and wishes to be considered for ordination by Rome, he has to provide a detailed list of his claimed Apostolic Succession for review.
Comment by David Zampino —
See above: Graham Leonard is the only one to have been conditionally ordained.
I’m not sure how many C of E clergymen will actually gird up their loins and swim the Tiber. Many of these are married men with families. The Ordinariate isn’t up and running yet, and even if it were, they would take a substantial paycut and lose their pensions.
Comment by MargaretC
If they’re already qualified for their pensions, why would they lose them? I had a classmate in Rome who had been Episcopal Church of Scotland. He was using his pension to pay for his priestly studies.
Yet another argument in favor of clerical celibacy.
“I invite all the women religious out there who are in favor of the “ordination” of women (not to mention pro-abortion health care legislation) to seek a safe haven in the Church of England.”
Fr. Z:
Why would these women religious want to seek a safe haven in the C of E when they already have a very cozy situation in the Catholic Church? Apart from the occasional slap on the wrist from some angry “conservative” Bishop, when was the last time any of these religious were seriously disciplined by the Hierarchy? I’m afraid we’re stuck with these ecclesiastical “career girls” for the duration.
The following was supposed to have been deleted.
Yet another argument in favor of clerical celibacy.
…Sing a new church into being, one in her’sy, tol’rance ‘n’ relevance!
That being said, I’ll believe they’re crossing the Tiber when I see it. Perhaps I’m jaded by the (lack of) cojones of our Episkopoi, but something tells me that this may not happen swiftly, smoothly, or at all. I fear the good Dr. Williams might bend over backward and create his own little ‘FSSP’ and allow that kind of small rupture, rather than lose those who would come to us.
As well as; I don’t know how much these (Most) Reverend Laymen from the CoE actually desire Communion with Rome over disunion with London. I mean, really, how often have they actually been accountable to someone higher for their teaching? Is there some central authority enforcing their liturgical standards? Is anyone mandating that they tow the doctrinal line? (assuming they have liturgical standards and doctrinal lines) How will they react to, at least a theoretical if not actual, someone enforcing our standards?
I say theoretical because of places like LA and the Hell Week. I say Boston for… Well… Everything.
What if the Queen “swims”? She must really be embarassed by all this…!
Seriously, though: would she be deposed if she left the C of E?
The last Catholic monarch was King James II — and he was deposed in the so-called “Glorious Revolution” in 1689. In the years that followed, Parliament passed legislation preventing a Catholic to take the throne. When Queen Anne died without living heirs, the nearest Protestant claimant to the throne was the German Elector of Hanover who became King George I.
As recently as 20-30 years ago, when Prince Michael of Kent married a Catholic woman, he had to surrender his place in the line of succession to the throne (not that his place was particularly high!)
Unfortunately, with the state of affairs currently existing in the United Kingdom, I somehow find it doubtful that Parliament is too eager to address ANY religious question, much less repealing anti-Catholic legislation.
Irishgirl wonders whether the Holy Father will be visiting any English Cathedrals when he visits Britain. I understand he will be going to Westminster Abbey (Anglican) but I have not seen Westminster Cathedral (Catholic) mentioned.
Is it just me, or does the look on Her Excellency’s face conjure up any other parent’s memory of a time when they found a little daughter and her friends playing dress-up with mommy’s clothes, their faces smeared with mommy’s lipstick, the bedroom reeking of mommy’s perfume?
Oh, God. I jumped over to your website and front and center is that picture. Thank you so much. I needed a good laugh. The picture alone would make a funny post. Whenever I need a little cheering up, I will be coming back to hunt this post down for the picture alone.
everett:
These people have already left the Catholic Church. Better for them to leave than to cause scandal and bring others down with them! They do not uphold the Church’s teaching! Furthermore, many don’t even go to Mass anymore…I’m not joking. They have their own form of prayer, get a priest to make some Jesus, and then hold their own ceremonies. It’s widespread I’m afraid.
Tune: The Church’s One Foundation
Our Church has no foundation
but big fat Henry’s bed.
She is his new creation,
for wanting Anne to wed
Queen Catherine away he sent her
for want of a new bride,
and when fat Henry had her,
to hell went by her side.
O sing to every nation,
the glories of our Church!
Her doctrine of salvation,
not found but we’ve not searched.
One holy truth ‘ere guiding,
we’re high, and low, and tween,
but if salvation seeketh,
with us it’s never been.
Those Anglican ministers who leave the security of their parishes and pensions to ‘swim the Tiber’ and put themselves and their
families at the mercy of their new Church have my deepest admiration. I pray that our bishops show these men and their families
every possible consideration, for the converts are trusting them with their lives.
That some might be able to retain some or all of their pensions is rather beside the point–I doubt those men can keep families in
perpetuity on whatever retirement funds they’ve squirreled away. These men are putting a great deal of trust in us.
Now would be the time for all of those Catholics that murmur for an end to priestly celibacy to show folks like me what sacrifices
they’d make to support married clergy. They should be in the vanguard of openhanded support for these men and their families, or
they give the lie to their position.
And as for those religious that despise the Church even as they cynically use Her for a cozy berth, such men as these Anglicans must
be a terrible rebuke. As jvicente @ 10:19 am said, we’re stuck with those ‘career girls’, for they have neither the honesty nor the
guts of the Anglican converts.
Regarding COFE – it was bound to happen after womyn priests, my message to anglican clergy/laity swim towards Rome whilst you still can.
Regarding the proposed trade of mad women religous for almost sane COFE traddies, I’d rather do prayer and pennace for mad women religous and protestants in general
Those Anglican ministers who leave the security of their parishes and pensions to ‘swim the Tiber’ and put themselves and their
families at the mercy of their new Church have my deepest admiration. I pray that our bishops show these men and their families
every possible consideration, for the converts are trusting them with their lives.
It is not a matter for “our bishops”. Rome has created an ordinariate to handle most of these cases. Further, we cannot assume that every Anglican clergyman will be ordained a Catholic priest.
That some might be able to retain some or all of their pensions is rather beside the point—I doubt those men can keep families in
perpetuity on whatever retirement funds they’ve squirreled away. These men are putting a great deal of trust in us.
Comment by Clinton
That must be a consideration for any married Anglican clergy who wants to be ordained a Catholic priest.
The only problem with your suggestion is that those women religious won’t go to the Anglicans, will they? They are bent upon destroying the Catholic Church. It’s diabolical. Satan doesn’t go after false churches, he goes after the one, true Church.
Father, I think the article you were referring to was at
http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/anglican_ordination_of_women_leads_to_two_types_of_communion_at_cathedral/
in which the Anglican Cathedral at Lancashire maintained separate “bread blessed by a male priest”.
I’ve heard from many quarters the wish for hard-core dissenters from Catholic doctrine to become Anglicans. Well, while that has some appeal of cleaning our house – what would that do to those dissenters?
Even though these public dissenters create great damage, wishing them away from the only way to salvation is, well, not a charitable thing to do. Even the excommunicated are obligated to attend Mass and are continually called to turn back.
Excommunicate them, if we need to (knowing the proper meaning of that censure), or remove their authority to teach or rule. But don’t wish them to separate themselves further from the Truth.
“If the C of E has no womympriests or byshops now, then what, pray tell, are those womyn in the photograph? ”
Sean:
Those are Episcopalians not CoE. Second from right to the rear is the presiding Bishop of the Episcopal church. I believe the woman on the extreme right is Catherine Roskham – a sort of Joan Chittester (however you spell it) in the the Episcopal world.
If folks don’t know it, you might find the “Bad Vestments” blog amusing.
http://badvestments.blogspot.com/
The C of E has no true priesthood to begin with. So why not have anyone who wants to be a minister be one just like all the other tens of thousands of protestant churches?
The defection of our dissenting ‘religious’ who remain within the Church is a cause not only of scandal and confusion but great sadness for their souls for they have known the Truth and rejected it for a ‘truth’ of their own making. The Holy Father is right: the sins within the Church are indeed terrifying.
A few corrections to that article.
The legislation under discussion is to allow the consecration of women as bishops, women have been ordained as priests in the CofE since 1997.
The dioceses of Fulham, Richborough and Ebbsfleet do not exist. The bishops with those titles are those charged with the care of parishes which have opted out of a normal relationship with their diocesan bihop on the grounds that he ordains women. They are formally suffragans, respectively, of London, Canterbury and Canterbury, and cover, repectively, London and its suburbs, the rest of South-East England, and South-West England. In the northern province of York the Bishop of Beverley (suffragan of York) has the same function.
Valley Bishop shes a Valley Bishop. Like Oh My God, you need to repent I’m so sure!.
Like I’m a Bishop now you knew. Totally!.
Ordination of women bishops will definitely happen in the C of E. There will not be parallel structures for those opposed (e.g. alternate episcopal oversight).
The part of this that always puzzles me is the difference in the way the Anglican Communion views Priests versus Bishops. For example: ordain scads of openly gay priests (no big deal)/ordain a gay bishop (HUGE deal). Ordain women priests (big deal in the CoE but not enough to leave over)/ordain a women bishop (HUGE deal and probably splits the CofE). If anyone can adequately explain this I’d be much obliged. It seems to me that this horse left this barn long ago, why all the consternation now? What did they expect after all?
Amen, Brother Z!
Pelerin-Westminster Abbey is ‘not’ a cathedral, but it sure has the ‘size’ of one!
But I guess the Holy Father would feel ‘at home’ there because it was once a BENEDICTINE abbey!
It was one of my favorite places during my visits to England-and it still has the shrine of St. Edward the Confessor!
Come now, Fr. Z, the “invitation to leave” comes from our own Protestant upbringing and inclinations. “If you don’t like it, jump ship!” All sinners are called to reconcile with Christ and His Church, even the stupid ones dressed in rainbows.
Kum-bye-ah… (ZOT!)
Actually, it sounds like a pretty good swap. Two traditional Anglican bishops for your thirty dozen Catholic wymynpriests. SOLD!
David Zampino:
The right of succession became an issue when Prince Edward married Princess Sophie as she was Catholic and ended up committing Apostacy and joined up with the CofE so as not to loose Edward his claim to the throne.
Irishgirl is right. I don’t know how long ago she was in London but if it was some time she would be surprised at the cost of visiting Westminster Abbey today. I understand they now charge £15 (or £12 for over 60s.) Our own beautiful Cathedral is of course free but with a donation box for visitors.
“What’s not to like?”
If I were Williams, I would hold out for additional “heretics to be named later.” The Church has plenty to spare.
chcrix,
As to Bad Vestments, the one on the Presiding Bishop in the photo you linked can’t begin to hold a candle to this one she has been seen wearing on more than one occasion.
Pax et bonum,
Keith Töpfer
Edwardo3,
I was unaware that Princess Sophie had been a Catholic. Your example is much more current than mine is. Thanks!
Actually, it sounds like a pretty good swap. Two traditional Anglican bishops for your thirty dozen Catholic wymynpriests. SOLD!
Dear Anges
I hope that you are meerly joking!!, would it not be better to pray and do pennance for these crazy women religous?, to hope that they would repent of their error, turn back to their vocation and try to undo some of the damage they have caused.
Mashenka–Wow!
I’m sorry to have to put it this way, but they’re all drag queens. It’s a costume ball. The “ordination” of women just underscores the nullity of all of their “orders.” It’s Halloween in May.
Edwardo3 and David-As far as I know, Sophie, the Countess of Wessex [her correct style and title as wife of Prince Edward] has always been an Anglican. Never heard that she was Catholic.
Now the Queen’s first grandchild, Peter Phillips, son of Anne, the Princess Royal [by her first marriage to Captain Mark Phillips], married a Canadian girl by the name of Autumn Kelly- she was Catholic. So she had to convert to Anglicanism when she married Peter. Neither Peter nor his sister Zara have titles-at their mother’s request. But he’s down in the pecking order of succession, anyway, so there’s no chance he would become King even if his then-fiancee remained a Catholic!
pelerin-last time I was in London [and in England, period] was 1999. So you have to PAY to get into Westminster Abbey? No kidding! Well, I guess they have to have some means of raising the cash for upkeep….I wonder if that’s the case in the other older churches WHICH WERE ONCE CATHOLIC!
No kidding Irishgirl! I believe other English Anglican Cathedrals also now have an entry charge for visitors.
Irishgirl:
I got the two confused, my appologies. When I was in England in 2007 the entrance fee to Westminster was quite expensive, on a par with the Duomo in Pisa, which was excessive.
Irishgirl – you have got me thinking! I had been planning a visit to Canterbury (where St Thomas Becket was martyred) which I have never been to and decided to look up the entry charge there. It is £8. Coventry Cathedral is £4.50. St Paul’s in London is £12.50. Exeter is £4 and Winchester £8. In contrast the Cathedral of Notre-Dame in Paris is still free!
Mortal man has no greater right to the truth, nor does he possess any more of it than does his sister. To try to stop anyone, male or female, from sharing God’s truth with others, is to work against God Himself.
They charge to visit?? I am shocked ! Really.Pray for all the new members of the Catholic Church for their journey will not be easy. They need to know we are with them. Sometimes it is no rose garden on this side of the Tiber either. But I truly believe they will make a difference, for the better, in the Catholic Church in a few years time. I hope they all make the crossing. What is happening in the C of E is so way out there, it seems there is nothing left that will be spared “change”. And if the Queen were to become Catholic, or a future Monarch, at this point, with all the religious freedom, and updating and changing of tradition, WHO CARES. The Monarch should be just as free as women in the C of E to do what she/he wants. Even if it means leaving the C of E, and praying in the Vatican once in a while. Now that would be a better photo than what’s posted. And probably sell a few papers too.
Dear in Christ Agnes of Prague,
Many thanks… let us all pray together that everybody who comes into the Church come with empty hands but a heart wide-open to Our Lord.
Those who try to arrive laden with the baggage of the former years may find themselves waterlogged, whether they try to cross the Tiber under their own power or even in some sort of boat…. Let us never forget the trouble the Monty Python gang got into when they had to exclaim, “My hovercraft is full of eels!”
I think that those who come over will be only too happy to shake the dust of the Anglicans from their sandals.
We certainly were. We haven’t looked back.
I missed the music for awhile, but we have had a splendid improvement in music in our new parish — and the Ordinary of the Mass chanted in Latin every First Sunday — and wonderful things are afoot. I think I can honestly say that we are now singing more and better music in this parish than we ever did in our old Episcopal church. Choral preludes – medieval and Renaissance Masses – chant-and-motet combinations – plus a few select good moderns.
And I don’t have to pay any attention to the sartorial excesses of female ‘bishops’ anymore.
I do think, Keith, that the winner of the late lamented “Fireside Chat With the Rector” blog’s Nasty Chasuble Contest carries away the palm for the Worst. Vestment. Ever. And it’s clearly Episcopalian (note the tiny ECUSA shield in one of the “bubbles”.)
Front. Back. At least I think that’s the “orientation”.
Having swum the Tiber, starting at the banks of the Anglican church, only this past Easter, I am deeply and completely, happy to be home. The embrace of the Holy Mother Church is warm and welcome and here I intend to stay until I depart this life.
That said, I still feel a great affection for the people and the institution that set my feet on the path that led to those swift waters. I also have a great and terrible sadness for how far from the truth my separated brethren have fallen.
RobTBrown,
Perhaps you wouldn’t mind sharing what position you hold that you are able to say with such amazing confidence that Grham was the only Anglican clergyman ever conditionally ordained?
You may very well be accurate as concerns the English–I have no idea. However, I personally know former Episcopal priests, Americans who were conditionally ordained upon swimming the Tiber.
Jim
This looks like a bunch of creeps at a really bad Halloween party, which, ultimately is what the Church of England is all about: a big dress up game with no substance.
A clarification in light of robtbrown’s comment (10:12am) on the “Dutch Touch” and Graham Leonard, and a gentle corrective to the summary judgement of JosephMary (1:13pm):
The Dutch Old Catholic co-consecrators were, in fact, the principal consecrators: they signed sealed documents to that effect and used a liturgical form adapted to the guidelines of Apostolicae Curae. It was a significant gesture of humility on the part of the Church of England. Although England never renounced its claim to the Apostolic Succession, it nevertheless wished to take the steps necessary to remove all cause for doubt and scruple on the part of their partners in ecumenical dialogue (Roman and Eastern). It would, of course, be fair to observe that this conciliatory attitude did not long endure, but there are many priests who would pass at least the “conditional ordination” test if they were to apply for it.
As for recognition of Graham Leonard’s orders, Mgr. Leonard seems to have been persuaded to drop the matter and to accept that while married priests were a tolerable anomaly (given the Eastern discipline) a married bishop would be a bridge too far. Nevertheless, after his reception the then-Cardinal Ratzinger still always addressed him as “bishop” in private conversation. I can only commend that example of gentlemanly and humble openness to the possibility that God’s perspective may be different from ours for imitation by those Catholics tempted to gloat over Anglicanism’s current difficulties.
Likewise, the Bishop of Fulham (one of the likely departures from the Church of England) courteously refers to women Anglican clergy as fellow labourers in the Lord’s vineyard, even if he must remain firm in his belief that they have not received the grace to exercise a sacramental and sacrificial priesthood. I’m as allergic to politically correct double-speak as any reader of this blog. But how anyone hopes to persuade people — especially educated, professional women — of the truth of the Catholic teaching on holy orders by poking fun at “wymynpriests” is a total mystery to me.
And TNCath, that picture is of bishops in The Episcopal Church (USA). England has no women in the episcopate as yet. Fr. Z is presumably using a little licence to help you imagine the Church of England of the future.
Archcantor: It is what it is.
I agree with tzard. We need true unity and should pray for it (and thus the conversion of those in grave sin.)
It is the duty of a bishop to correct errant sheep, even if that means excommunication. In the wake of Vatican II, it seems there is an unspoken code to excommunicate essentially never. It is easier to just let sheep wander off and die than smack them into place.
The Anglicans were always in a state of schism and heresy; Henry and Cramner began the long act of layman dressing up as ordained clergy. The difference now is woman participate.
I wonder what would happen if in the distant future you had a female Archbishop of Canterbury and the Pope came back to the UK for a visit. Would they meet? Would the Pope call her by her so-called title of just first name. Or would the Vatican consider Canterbury vacant till a male Bishop was installed.
Instead of coming at this with the notion that out of courtesy one must address he who demands office recognition, I look at the humble approach taken by a former Anglican Bishop. I can’t remember his name, but he convert to the Catholic Church recently.
He did not ask even to be ordained a priest. I think his conversion is the true model because he simply accepted the Church for what it is without special accommodation.
Regarding a future woman Anglican Archbishop of Canterbury, I would imagine she would be addressed at Archbishop Jane Doe. She would have no more or less clerical status than the current Anglican Primate so refusing to call her by her title would be bizarre.
The Dutch Old Catholic co-consecrators were, in fact, the principal consecrators: they signed sealed documents to that effect and used a liturgical form adapted to the guidelines of Apostolicae Curae. It was a significant gesture of humility on the part of the Church of England. Although England never renounced its claim to the Apostolic Succession, it nevertheless wished to take the steps necessary to remove all cause for doubt and scruple on the part of their partners in ecumenical dialogue (Roman and Eastern). It would, of course, be fair to observe that this conciliatory attitude did not long endure, but there are many priests who would pass at least the “conditional ordination” test if they were to apply for it.
Co-consecrators are used in episcopal consecration. If someone has not been validly ordained a priest (with the celebrant not in episcopal orders), then the episcopal ordination is invalid no matter who is the principal.
As for recognition of Graham Leonard’s orders, Mgr. Leonard seems to have been persuaded to drop the matter and to accept that while married priests were a tolerable anomaly (given the Eastern discipline) a married bishop would be a bridge too far.
And what would have happened if he had not been persuaded?
If Graham Leonard’s episcopal orders had been recognized, the Church would have considered him a bishop–married or not.
Nevertheless, after his reception the then-Cardinal Ratzinger still always addressed him as “bishop” in private conversation. I can only commend that example of gentlemanly and humble openness to the possibility that God’s perspective may be different from ours for imitation by those Catholics tempted to gloat over Anglicanism’s current difficulties.
Cardinal Ratzinger was just following Vatican protocol.
Likewise, the Bishop of Fulham (one of the likely departures from the Church of England) courteously refers to women Anglican clergy as fellow labourers in the Lord’s vineyard, even if he must remain firm in his belief that they have not received the grace to exercise a sacramental and sacrificial priesthood. I’m as allergic to politically correct double-speak as any reader of this blog. But how anyone hopes to persuade people—especially educated, professional women—of the truth of the Catholic teaching on holy orders by poking fun at “wymynpriests” is a total mystery to me.
Comment by Archicantor
I didn’t address this situation, but I don’t think that women “priests” and I are working in the same vineyard. And I do think that the “ordination” of women is a parody of Christ’s priesthood. And parodies are funny.
Perhaps you wouldn’t mind sharing what position you hold that you are able to say with such amazing confidence that Grham was the only Anglican clergyman ever conditionally ordained?
One of my mentors at the Angelicum was the SCDF expert on the Anglican problem. He knew that I had been an Episcopalian, and we had many conversations concerning Apostolicae Curae.
You may very well be accurate as concerns the English—I have no idea. However, I personally know former Episcopal priests, Americans who were conditionally ordained upon swimming the Tiber.
Jim
Comment by thepapalbull
If so, it is a fairly recent development, done for irenic reasons.
A conditional ordination, however, is not a recognition of the validity of Orders, which demands moral certitude. BTW, when I became Catholic in 1970, I was–and wanted to be–conditionally Baptized.
robtbrown said: “If someone has not been validly ordained a priest (with the celebrant not in episcopal orders), then the episcopal ordination is invalid no matter who is the principal.”
Am I not right in understanding that ordination per saltum, while not licit in modern Roman Canon Law, is nevertheless recognized as valid? (And if it’s not, how do we explain, say, St Ambrose?) Or are you saying that the presence of Anglican co-consecrators with an Old Catholic principal consecrator somehow muddied the waters?
I’ll just disagree privately about everything else! There’s nothing so unsatisfying as combox debate…
With regards to Anglicans/Episcopalians swimming the Tiber-in this case clergy-I met twice the Episcopal Bishop of an Upstate New York diocese. He was a great admirer of both John Paul II and then-Cardinal Ratzinger. He was very happy when Ratzinger was elected Pope as Benedict XVI, and when he retired, he and his wife quietly entered the Catholic Church.
Well, to my surprise and dismay, I read recently that he returned to the Episcopal Church. He said he missed his former colleagues. No other reason was given…or at least nothing else was said in the story I read on CNA.
On a lighter note-wow, I never thought a comment of mine would attract so many responses!